Riot police at the Republican National Convention 2008

[fresniak]

@mikesternberg anarchy doesnt mean no rules you idiot!!! It means the Constitution and Common Law is the LAW not the Government Military Order

[mikesternberg]

@fresniak Get a dictionary: A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority is what anarchy means so since you want it enjoy it and take the police abuse dumbasses!

[fresniak]

@mikesternberg That definition is very wrong. Anarchy means Without Political Government. That comes from Greek. it does not mean Disorder etc.. You can have no political Government, yet you can have the LAw of the Land and Government that proceeds from Justice. But you want to make it seem like anarchists do not want law. That's FALSE they don't want arbitrary political government. Read the difference between Common Law and Civil Law, and stop putting people in your propaganda convenient boxes.

[mikesternberg]

@fresniak Lmao I took that right from a dictionary your just trying to cram your ideology into the word and make it fit. I win.

[fresniak]

@mikesternberg No you loose Idiot, cause that is not an english word, therefore you or any english dictionary cannot distort it as you want. I have studied ancient greek, you look to have studied nothing in your life at all.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

I suggest you move to a country without government and try it out. Somalia is lovely at this time of year I hear. Oh, you'd rather stay in your safe and free society where "the fascist pigs" bend over backwards to ensure you the right to spit in their faces? Don't blame you. So much easier to be an academic theoretic with a very loud mouth, when you know the police got your back, isnt it?

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 Well actually I would love a country where the Law is Common Law and where the government pigs do not make your life so miserable that you're forced to go in a public street and protest about it. Or do you think people love to protest for sport?

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

How would common law be enforced if, say, I do not adher to it?

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 To not adhere to common law you have to create a actual, verifiable infringement of another individual right. In that case you either go to court or call the police, but here is the point: you do not want to apply the law for any smallest violation, Civilization requires a little bit of tolerance , and police should not proceed to arrest if the violation is negligible and the violator shows cohoperation. Even animals have more tolerance among themselves than police state slave ppl.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

Skip the buzzwords like slavery and policestate. I am not impressed. And those who are, allready agree with you.

I ask again, who decides if the violation is negligable?

[blaster702]

the riot police are just doing their jobs.  They arnt going to get violent unless the protesters do first. Their only there to keep things under control

[85mrgardner]

Boo I was misled by the words riot police. I thought I was going to see a fight, or at least a beat down.  I got suckered.

[wearefreedom]

Sorry guys freedom of speech is not allowed in this section of the world....!

[RMCrowley]

What tools the storm troopers are

[catch20too]

Sorry guys, but holding a paper sign won't change the world.

[4aaaaa4]

Maybe if all the families were DRESSED IN SWIMSUITS, People would see that the ROBOARMY AND THEIR MILITARY WEAPONS LOOK REALLY DAMN SILLY.. wouldnt they?

Now you know how the people of IRAQ feel.

Only they were killed to death.

DEATH IS FOREVER.

+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:

[crmfghtr]

these people violated there permit went were they agreed not to go, nobody beat them bloody, if you want to blame someone blame the idiots that violated the permit and intentionally tried to start a riot

[HarjasKaur]

Who can start a riot against an Army of riot police in full body armor and submachine guns you idiot. Stop lying to yourself, no one believes you. Permits? to protest? Well, do you think Mao Tse Tung gave permits to protesters? Thats the whole point of protest, it's a Constitutional RIGHT, not a government decided gratuity.

[mmcginn25]

Submachine guns? Who's the idiot? I don't think the gas guns are automatic, skippy! I'm sorry but that's just dumb! As a citizen of St. Paul, it's my right to be able to walk through my city without a bunch of idiots running around, claiming the streets and breaking crap. For the most part, things were peaceful. I'm glad that the "anarchists" got gassed, I'm glad they got sprayed, and I'm glad they were arrested! Eight Hundred strong, good luck in court!

[theflea39]

see all you can critisize is that the cops dont have submachine guns and no one was breaking anything, i dont think you know the meaning of protest and at least they dont belive everythiong they see on cnn and personally i think you need to get gassed to see how it is

[Creeno1]

Rights is not just something protesters have. And that's why society has agreed on a common set of rules that applies to everyone. This is in order to allow the non-protesting population to live in peace if they want to, yet at the same time allowing protesting bodies to show their dissent (or consent).

It is not your right to protest anytime anywhere. If that was the case, non-protesters rights would be violated and we'd essentialy have a "mob rule". That's why a permit is needed.

[Calhoon1832]

I agree people have the right to live in their little holes and ignore the world around them. But in a free society it cant be required to have a permit to protest. People can avoid protesters if they wish. Also, protesters dont usually attack bystanders (the cops do but theyre not really supposed to so we cant throw away other's rights on their account) so people should be able to navigate through them if they are not trying to initiate conflict.

[Creeno1]

You seem to think that because they don't join you protest they are somehow blind and live in holes? How arrogant of you. You are truly mistaken if you think that blocking traffic and inconveniencing people who do not share your views, is a right you automaticaly have, any time, any place. Why should you have more right to block the streets than other people have, to use the streets as intended (traffic)? So, momentarily we set up divided use of the streets, to acomodate everyone. See?

[Calhoon1832]

Not b/c they dont join our protests, but in my experiance (limited as it may be) the general masses know very little pertaining to curent and historical political events. Im not being arrogant, there are alot of well informed people out there, and most of them would disagree w/ my views, but still most people are ignorant.

And as you said above, it is simply an inconvenience to others. Its not as if they were camping in the road for a week.

[Calhoon1832]

There are alternate routes, and room for foot traffic, people's lives our inconenienced but not inhibited. And conveying a political message (even if I disagree with it) is a right that should be held over virtually all others

[Creeno1]

So because you have a political agenda, your right superceeds every one elses? NO! Your right does not count above everyone elses. Equal rights for everyone. Not just the few!

Protesting is fine by me. But it MUST be done with respect and observance of all other peoples rights. You have the same right as everyone else. Not "more right" than everyone else.

[Creeno1]

So, if it's only an inconveniance, then you have the right to block traffic? By what right do you denie people the use of the roads you intend to occupy (again, without warning)?

And why, in your oppinion, are people not allowed to be just as ignorant as they want to be. Is that not their right? Why should your protest be thrust upon them if they do not want it? Is that your picture of a free society?

[Creeno1]

A permit, albeit a formality, solves the problem and potential conflicts, when a truckdriver and an angry crowd of protesters, clash on the issue "who has right of way". A permit solves the problem. The protesters have right of way. Tomorrow, the truckdriver has right of way. Where you see the permit as an inhibition and a limitation of your rights, I see it as a pragmatic solution to a very real problem: Who has the right? Answer: We all have!. And none of us can claim right over the other.

[Calhoon1832]

This problem is also solved by the fact a truck would be unable to drive into rows of protesters, and going very far.

If their is going to be a protest, those roads will be blocked. Advanced notice simply informs the police to attend (and with how that often turns out, I dont think thats a neccessarily a good idea good idea) when the protest occurs, the people will here about it as it happens, and know to plan around it. Most prolly wouldn't plan around it before it occured neway.

[Creeno1]

Correct, he wouldn't be able to go very far because the protesters are blocking his path. So we're back to mob rule. The mob has ruled that he cannot go where he wants to go. What if another mob decides to block your protests path. Then what?

A permit ensures that people can avoid a protest because it is announced. Truckdrivers, busdrivers, families on shopping, school classes on tour, people on their way to work, ordinary people in general, can in advance plan for alternatives that given day.

[Calhoon1832]

First of all in many cases protests are announced, and if they aren't its usually apparent that the area should be avoided, because protests usually occur at major events, like the RNC. idk, I think its kinda obvious that at every RNC?DNC there will be protestors. Also, drivers will know about the protest when it occurs, and until they know its occuring most proly wont do nething neway. But once it occurs, they can plan an alternate route.

[Creeno1]

"in many cases" ?? Isn't it kinda given that you announce a demonstration? The question is not IF drivers can find an alternative route. I'm sure they can. The question is: Why should they? Do they not have as much right to the streets as you have?

And let me just add, the permit is not for the protest as such. The permit just gives you temporary right to ignore common traffic rules, like walking in the traffic lanes, not stopping for red lights and such other things.

[Calhoon1832]

If protestors violate nonprotestors rights then address it as it occurs. but protests shouldn't require a permit.

just b/c some protestors go against someone's rights doesn't mean all should be punished by the restrictions of a permit. SiImply punish those actually doing wall. Preventative punishments in response to the actions of others are tyranny.

[Creeno1]

I don't know why you insist on calling the simple procedure of aquiring a permit, a punishment. In what way are you being punished? It is societys way of ensuring that it can function while your protest is being carried out. Is it not reasonable that government (local or other) ensure the rights of others(ie, freedom of movement)? Can you not see that you are sidetracking the rights of others by claiming the right to protest any time, any where you feel like it?

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 Because if you need a permit it means you have no Right. Also it goes against the "Innocent until proven guilty" paradigm that is the base of the Common Law and should be the base of every civilazation and form of government.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 Rights dont come from Government. Have ever read anything about common Law, the US constitution etc..? Please Read and understand it. Rights are inalienable and come from our Creator. They are in us. And Government should protect those rights, not taking them away or allowing them only when it is convenient. Rights by definition can only be good, so there is no justification to deny them.Until you are using tyour Right in the respect of others, you're not guilty of anything.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

But you are denying me the right to move where I want to because you are blocking me. Does your "common law" (that you no doubt will define in whatever direction benefits you) only ensure your rights?

I argue that a compromize will have to be made to accomodate the both of us. Not just you. Since we cannot occupy the same space at the same time, wouldnt it be prudent to make pragmatic arrangements that benefit us both? Or shold you be the only benefactor of common law?

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 Common Law comes together with Common Sense! If you had to apply the law for any little violation in your life you would have no time for living. The job of police is to keep the order if possibly in a pacific and friendly way, not proceeding to arrest or scare people dressed like robo-cops with helmets and iron fists. "traffic jams" matters can be solved in a friendly way. Do you think ppl would have objected? If you look at them as evil "anarchists" you'll never go and talk to them.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

Firendly way? Cool. So if I say, "move your protest elsewhere, I need to drive my truck here with groceries for the market" you'll just?

Sounds great man. I wonder why the police have so much trouble moving things. Perhaps because they live in the real world and not yours?

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 You do not need to move the protest elsewhere you can just have the police make a way for both you and the protesters to live happily. And to answer to you: the police are operating today under unconstitutional authority and commands, you may thank things like the patriot act for this. So the real world is they dont give a fuck anymore on doing their peace-keeping job, they just serve the govt masters and the elite.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

Your oppinion on the unconstitutional actions of the police as a whole and as an institution, is unsupported. You certainly do not see any such action in this video.

You're grasping elsewhere than what this video depicts to support an allready reached conclusion.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 they are unsupported maybe in this video but not in others i have seen from the same event

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

And ofcourse those videos are "secret/deleted by youtube/not published for fear of prosecution" or whatever reason you can otherwise think of. Fact is, ALL those video show the same that this one does. Protesters who do not extend the same rights to other people, that they so loudly claim for themselves.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 are you trying now to change the subject cause I win and you loose? I answered to you regarding the way a conflict of rights can be solved, I am not going to hunt youtube videos of police assaults and unlawful arrests, you can find as many as you want on youtube

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

No you did not answer the question. You're beating around the bush to a straightforward and honest question about how a very specific and real confrontation should be handled. You dodge and weave and refuse to answer. Winning yet?

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 No it's you who are trying desperately to mix things so that the result of your theorem would be that we need a police state and that we need to ask permission for walking in the street.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

No mix up, and no need for permission: But you DO need permission to denie me the possebility to use the road. Because that's what you are doing, all the while you are screaming "freedom of speech"! Yeah...fuck MY freedom so you can excercise yours, right? You do NOT have the freedom to impare mine. Get it? But I'm a reasonable man. So each of us need to comply to a set of rules that enable us both to coexist without conflict. Comply to them, or I call the cops to resolve the issue.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 As I said your talking about violations is completely vain and void, cause you have yet to prove the police was acting that way cause anyone violated anyone else right. Police was there just to DICTATE their will and the will of their commanders to the individuals that were present there at the peaceful protest.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

It was not the polices will that was enforced. It was the rights of the citizens in that area they were protecting because the protesters felt they had more right than anyone else. They always think they do, because they cannot see beond their own noses. THEIR cause is the most important. Fuck everyone else, right? And when the police arrive to defend the non-protesting public, you scream "police state" at the top of your lungs. Absolutely distastefull!

[Creeno1]

@fresniak said: "If you had to apply the law for any little violation in your life you would have no time for living". So you agree it's a violation? Good, now we are getting somewhere.

So who decides if the violation is a big one or just a little one that you think we should be able to live with? You? Me?

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 you're really going on word picking and hunting. I TOLD you you need tolerance and reciprocal understanding, this is the base of a society. You cant prosecute everyone for any smallest violation, without even talking to him and trying to solve the matter if possible in a peaceful way

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

So what you are saying is that people will somehow, because you say they should, become tolerant loving and forgiving people? The situation I describe with the truck and the protest is very very real. It happens every day. Your solution is...."friendliness"?

I think your approach is commendable, albeit naive, unrealistic, unpresidented and daft.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 "Your solution is...."friendliness"?" Again putting words in my mouth. You really dont seem interested in listening or understanding what i am saying. I repeat last time. It's the POLICE who needs to solve such matters in a friendly way if possible, and if there is no police the first duty of the individuals is always solving things in a friendly way. We are not at war with each other in a society.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

I assure you: every single video you see on youtube where protesters are fighting the police or being physicaly moved by the police, has been edited to ommit the part where the police tell the protesters that they are in violation of the rules of protest. Every....single...one of them! The police HAVE actualy tried to resolve this in a friendly manner by telling people, by way of loudspeakers, to move. They simply refuse and welcome the confrontation. It spurs martyrdom in videos.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 yeah like the one where a guy falls from the bike and the police arrests him with no lawful reason

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 the protester may have a much right as you of moving around, you need to consider any individual as distinct and assess if he/she committed a violation individually

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

He is. He is blocking my freedom of movement. Is that his right? How do you propose we resolve this conflict of interest? Gasp....I have it! We make rules that makes room for the both of us. How does that sound to you?

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 No Rules, because until someone is guilty of some violation he is innocent. So you can't create rules before, it's against common law. I say let the police or judges handle the cases where things cannot be solved peacefully between individuals whose rights can be conflicting. Law should be the last resort.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

This IS the last resort. They're told to move because they are in violation of other peoles rights. They flat out refuse and in many cases instigate confrontation. Not very "friendly" if you ask me. Glad to see you admit that we need the law. Also glad that you agree that the police and judicial system are the right people to handle these conflicts. Dunno why it took you so long to come to that logical conclusion. EVeryone else has.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 They cannot be ordered to move in mass, cause each and every of them is a separate individual and each and every of them has to be addressed individually by the police. This is how law is enforced. I am sure most of them even did not violate the rights of anyone and obeyed the traffic laws while walking.

[Creeno1]

Adressed individualy?!? Are you fucking joking? You cannot possibly mean that seriously. Another academic theorem constructed by a twisted freeman semantics seminar. Quit your freeman bullshit 'cause it doesnt fly. In court or in common sense. If you are marching in a protest, and you hear the police telling you to move,you move out of the way or get moved by force. Quite simple. Not to mention reasonable.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 Coomon Law applies to individual. STOP YOUR PROPAGANDA. I am tired of morons like you. The police cannot play at being the military. There was no violent protest, just people walking in a park and speaking out their voice. There was no violation of anyone's right. You're making the bullshit up. I was conceding to you of speaking about a hypothetical violation, but I see you dont get the fact that Anyone is innocent until proven guilty. Now stop it, you're making a fool of yourself .

[Creeno1]

What propaganda? You are trying to denounce your responsebility by way of freeman semantics that has nothing to do with common sense. You are prevetning non-protesters from using the street. Move! What's so hard to undersand about that? What gives you the right to denie everyone else the right to freedom of movement? Nothing! But I'll agree to an accomodation. If you break that agreement, you are in direct violation and I will ask the police for help.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 "lad to see you admit that we need the law. Also glad that you agree that the police and judicial system are the right people to handle these conflicts." Thanks for giving the "evil anarchist" a chance...man

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

You're not an anarchist if you believe you have the right to denie me MY rights. And apparently you do.

Evil? No I dont think so. Misguided and borderline fascist...you betcha!

The biggest problem is that you cant see beond your own nose and understand the impact and consequences of your actions. That's not evil. Just stupid.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 "You're not an anarchist if you believe you have the right to denie me MY rights. And apparently you do." No apparently you like to make the things up. And I told many times if anyone violates a right he should face justice that's all. You have yet not proven the police was giving orders cause people was violating anyone rights.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

When protesters refuse to stay on the planned route or refuse to comply to the planned time (submitted by the protesters themselves) they are in direct violation of everyone elses rights who reside in and use those streets. THAT is the violation. It is the police's job to ensure those rights are protected. They did so. End of story. The protesters didnt care about the rights of others, so the police stepped in to ensure them. That's what they're there for!

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 The rule about the route to follow is unconstitutional. And there are no such things as "the protesters", there are individuals. Do you think every and each of them has signed an agreement to follow a planned route established together with the police? And even if it was so, the fact they had to ask a permission is unconstitutional itself. Get your facts straight. The police was there to enforce police rules rather than sanctioning violations of individual rights and tha's the big point

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

And *I* havent signed an agreement that allows you to prevent me from driving my truck down the street. Yet I am being prevented from doing so by people like you. How do you suggest we resolve that situation? What right is it that you claim to have that I dont?

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

Once again you are blind to what goes on beond your own nose. You are not the only one with rights. Protesters seem to think that because they are protesters, all of a sudden they are the only ones who are protected by the constitution. The consitution is for everyone. Not just you! THAT is why you need to supply a route when you are disrupting other peoples right to freedom of movement. It is a pragmatic solution to a very real problem.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 Not only you're deaf and ignorant but also very stupid. There is no such thing as a preventive rights protection in the constitution. If you violate someone's right you go face justice, that's how it works. If you hate protesters then find some of them that violates your right and prosecute him/her or call the police, but you cannot prevent legitimate people to walk where they want if they do not infringe anyone's right. they are all innocent until proven guilty.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

If they are part of a protest that is going outside of the planned route or time, they are in direct violation and can collectively be ordered to move. Why? Because they are preventing everyone else from going where they want to go. I'm not saying that they shouldnt be allowed to march. I'm saying that they should always do so in consideration of the citizens that are NOT protesting. Hence, we have rules. You cannot lay claim to a street at any time you wish. And neither can I.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 With your logic you should too agree with a route for your truck with the police, in order to make sure you are not going to infringe anyone rights. Or even worst maybe you are willing to use your truck to kill someone on your way, or you're going to drive drunk, so you could be very dangerous.. Are you willing to accept the same notion about YOUR rights? What you propose is fascist, pre-crime prevention, it's living in a police state where you are guilty before committing a crime.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

Yes, those laws are called traffic laws. They are simple and pragmatic rules, implemented to ensure that everyone can coexist without constant conflict. Without those rules, I would lose right of way every time I encounter a bigger truck than mine. So we have made rules regarding this, to accomodate both of us. The same goes for protest marches who take up the space otherwise used for infrastuctual traffic. You claim to have right of way at all times. You dont!

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 If you agree Traffic Rules are already in place and very efficient to handle traffic conflicts between vehicles and persons, why then you insist that walking people need extra rules to be bound to? What makes you think that a person which walks along in a peaceful "protest" is some kind of alien or inferior person that must be subjected to extra regulation? And how arbitrary can be such regulation? How do you establish which people are bad and which good? you dont give a fuck i suppose

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

They are not subject to EXTRA regulation. They are subject to regulation EQUAL to that of everyone else. However, for a set timeframe, and within a certain areas (ie. route) protester require special priviledges in order to accomodate their needs (block traffic, hinder every one else from using the same space, etc). So society extends them special priviledges in that timeframe and area. Outside that timeframe and route, they are expected to respect other peoples freedom.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

Btw...traffic rules are not allready in place. They are momentarily suspended to accomodate the big group of people who cannot possibly all use the sidewalk at the same time.

[fresniak]

@Creeno1 "..when you are disrupting other peoples right " YOU SAY SO BUT IT WAS NEVER PROVEN ANY OF THE PROTESTERS DID SO. They were observing traffic laws, as a general rule. And if they asked to use some space to the city, it does not mean they also cannot go out of that space. It was the city that gave them the space in addition to their free movements (within the traffic laws) granted by the constitution. The rule that you so much advocate is already in place, it's called traffic laws.

[Creeno1]

@fresniak

Yes it means exactly that they cannot go outside of that route. Busroutes need to be replanned, timetables rescheduled, firedepartments need to plan for a different route because they KNOW the normal route will be blocked. You demand the right to have a protest march anywhere at any time. You do not have that right. Nor should you. By doing so, you are violating mine. I advocate the common ground which allows us both to equal use of the space. You demand ALL of it, ALL the time.

[Creeno1]

I think we may be talking about different things here. I don't think you need a permit if you and a buddy want to stand on the sidewalk one afternoon, holding a sign that says "I protest". It is only when other peoples rights are "violated" that you need a permit to temporarily do so (block traffic, inhibit freedom of movement, and so on). This just occured to me. Personaly I was talking about big protests, like the one you see in this video.

[Psychedelia1969]

wtf was that, if those people were real protesters they would have kept on walking right through. Also, for anyone whowas there, You guys should have started a real riot like they havein europe

[mikesternberg]

stop crying you bunch babies! thats what you get for being anarchists anarchy means no rules right? well then stop bitching when the cops are rough if no rules is ok for you then nor rights for you and no rules for the cops must be ok as well yawn there are real problems in the world go find a real cause may i suggest being a teacher or a go work for feed the children or even the peace core empty protests that failed thats what this was

[nopiluvin]

THANK YOU!!!!!

[Joelduffy]

What the hell, we didn't riot at the liberal, I mean democratic national convention! Just goes to show you what idiots the Obama fans really are.

[irishfiregirrl]

Suppose to comment on video, not espouse your politics. This video shows more media and riot police but not many protesters.

[deathlaychur]

civil disobedience

[ffairlane57]

Anrchist.

[boosuff]

deathlaychur

you mean, civil duty.

[1209degrees]

peaceful protest = civil right

chaotic, bloody, profanity-laced clash = civil disturbance

[boosuff]

1209 degrees

Yes, that is correct, as my point was taken from the analysis of the video.

[l0lidude]

Does the dog on the end of a video have a swasticka on it?

[iCarlyFan88]

Ok, Lincoln may be the considered the man that freed the slaves but Lincoln was not trying to free them. He was trying to stop slavery into the territories gained by the U.S. at that time. He wanted to keep the Union intact. Hell yeah the Republicans had a completely different agenda back then.

[cartmanfan0316]

you fucking liberal hippies that got violent and destroyed private property you are all fucking assholes. You call republicans nazi's and redneck racist's but you forget that they were the party that fought and freed the slaves. Go smoke your pot in your drum circles, do your acid and pcp and do America a favor and fucking die. If it was up to me I would throw you all in a 3rd world country to let you know how well you have it. Ungrateful faggots!

[lucgodammit]

The republicans had a completely different agenda when Lincoln was in office and it was revolutionaries and extremists that founded this county so read up before you say something next time.

[cartmanfan0316]

I understand that I'm talking of republicans of old but people should still not compare the republican party to nazis because you can compare the democrats/ liberals to communist USSR under stalin if you want to be extreme.

[prazed1]

liberal hippies that got violent is an oxymoron you fucking moron. go to a real hippie festival once and youll experience freedom like nothing this bullshit constitution has ever amounted to. whoooooooo gun rights...what about human rights?

[ffairlane57]

This isn't the liberal hippie movement of the 1960's, this is the Anarchist movement of today.

Anarchists seep to disrupt the government because they despise authority entirely.

[lucgodammit]

eh I agree to an extent. I think you could compare both parties to the Nazis or the Soviets these days if we're going to be extreme about it. All I know is my friend got arrested for nonviolent protesting at the RNC and he said he saw some incredibly corrupt things when he was locked up for 32 hrs. without knowing exactly what charge he was being arrested for.

[rainbowsixmaster1990]

man riot police look so damn cool y cant the army dress up like them

[tventers]

Nazi Stormtroopers ready to knock your teeth out for standing in the street with a sign... nice

They look menacing and they are meant to.

[kevstir]

Four legs good, two legs bad.

[Warsie]

" I'm not used to this much excitement in Saint Paul..."

lol

[JohnandMarlenafreak]

LOL,Me either.

[Spectre220]

hope they get those morons out of the city

[aerofan14]

haha i know

i wanted to go cause its the one exciting thing that happens in this state